Ok if you guys really believe that NASA can get out of the poo they're in, but I for one, don't think so.

I agree that the conspiracy theory is a bit over the top but the general gist of the article - recycling old ideas, one size fits all vehicles, understating vehicle conversion requirements, and so on - still stands. In addition, there's still no firm science program for the Vision to stand on. That was one of the reasons Apollo died. No follow-on supporting program.

But the major reasons as I've previously stated aren't engineering-related, they're lack of political will, too many brands in the fire, old ideas recycled and so on and the time-line on the Vision is over 2 or 3 political administrations, the current one of which seems to have become embroiled in a war with no end in sight. And this is going to consume more and more of the US Budget.

In addition, NASA's managed to piss off to the max I would say, their partners in the ISS. Those partners are showing more and more signs of going their own way and bypassing NASA and NASA has stated that they're going to need international help (say dollars and lots of them) to achieve their objectives.

Good luck to NASA, they're going to need it to develop any decent human space program. Heck, they can't even fix the shuttle enough to fly again

I think on the whole Griffen is doing the best he can with the difficult hand he has been dealt but that is not to say that NASA is performing as it should. NASA has taken 3 decades to get into its current position the road back will take a couple of years at least, it remains to be seen whether it has those years.

I think that there are serious issues for NASA's international partners over the ISS. A week does not go by without the Russians commenting on the US's lack of commitment to it and I think all the partners have doubts whether the US will finish the assembly. Also there is the fiasco that ITAR has created, effectively making any cooperation with the US much more difficult. All this is causing ESA to move away from NASA and work more closely with Russia or even China (they recently signed an agreement with the Chinese to cooperate more closely on space projects).

I think that at the moment NASA has very little to offer that would make other agencies want to become involved on another multi-billion dollar space project with them. Looking at it from a European perspective I think that the alternatives offerred by Russia are much more attractive.

The Kliper project could give Europe the oppotunity of having its own access to space from Kourou whereas it is unclear what involvement with the CEV or the Vision for Space Exploration would give it. The infrequent flights of the shuttle and a lack of flights after 2010 for at least 2 years calls into doubt how credible NASA is as a way of getting Europeans into space. I think that ESA sees that 2 year gap as being stretched to 4 or even more years because of budget concerns. If they are forced to rely on Russian craft to get them to the ISS then it is beneficial if they have a stake in them so at least they will have some control over costs and timescales.

NASA needs to get to grips with its problems much faster and show a much greater level of commitment to the projects that it starts, abandoning the ISS before it was completed would be a political disaster that would turn it into a space pariah.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Although I donâ€™t care for conspiracy theories, I found the full article very informative. I do wonder why, with extreme progress in small lightweight electronics and major progress in other aerospace materials, the planned craft needs to have 2.25 times the volume and 1.19 times the PROJECTED mass of the Apollo PER OCCUPANT. (In addition, the uncertainties are greatly reduced and the schedule is relaxed). I emphasize â€œprojected massâ€

A much lighter craft would make it possible to launch the CEV on other boosters so that if the proposed new launch vehicle hits problems during development then there is an alternative.

I know that using an EELV is not popular but it could be used to plug delays and possibly be a way of speeding the CEV program up. A smaller, lighter craft on an existing launcher would probably be quicker to develop than a larger CEV and new launch vehicle.

Delaying the launcher development until after the CEV is well underway would free up resources and finances which appear to be in short supply at NASA. I would much rather they just fully funded everything and speeded it all up but that doesn't look like it is going to happen at the moment so this would at least allow the CEV to be on time.

Like rpspeck says its difficult to understand why this new craft has to be so heavy and historically craft have gotten heavier so it makes sense to start with as light a craft as possible.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

"If anyone is interested, the mars progam mentioned in the CEV Documentation is the final version of Mars DRM 3, in which the crew transport is used for the round trip, rahter than travelling to mars in the hab, then return on a dedicated Earth Return Vehcile. The CEV will be used for crew transport between vehciles, and possibly as the mars ascent vehcile. this can then be re-used for earth retrun."

This is the 2nd time I've noticed that the requirements have been relaxed on a major point, originally the CEV was to be reusable but currently its "hoped" that it will be reusable. I guess the next step is not to be used at all.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I hate to sound pessimistic but NASA are in the *** big time. They've got Congress breathing down their necks due to their history of scrapping projects, blowing schedules out of the water with respect to time, cost, scope and so on, and they've lost a lot of public support. They've lost two shuttles due to things they knew about but discounted. Their new effort is currently being scaled back and not looking at all positive.
Now they say they're going back to the moon but with little science to do there - merely for the thrill of going there? And they haven't finished the ISS yet or even got firm plans on how to do it due to the big question mark over the STS.

Look, the only reason the US got into the space business initially was for military reasons. Methinks that the only way they'll ever get a successful program of human space exploration going again is if someone else looks like doing it ie. China or Russia. I don't think the Europeans are all that interested. And it'll be catch up all over again.

That said, maybe some private concern will get their act together and create relatively cheap human-rated access to space and the only ones out there at the moment are Musk (if he can get his vehicles launched) and Rutan who has proved up suborbital but not yet orbital but says he can. So suborbital will be the start. The big question is whether orbital can be made sufficiently cheap and safe to attract large numbers of the public as passengers and / or business for space-related research, production, etc. I think Bigalow will succeed with accommodation but as I've previously mentioned, he needs reliable cheap transport to his stations.

Here's hoping the privates can do it 'cause I think NASA's efforts are currently doomed.

By the way, I'm only talking about NASA's human space effort not it's research or robotic efforts which, although they've had a few failures, are on the whole, far more successful.

But boil off is not a problem--and hypergolics are rather compact. It is actually safer to have a simpler systtem. Isp is not such an issue--after all, it will be riding hydrogen oxygen upper stages on the Stick. Hypergolics work just fine.

When I speak of ISP I am thinking more of the missions to the Moon. If the engines used to supply the deltaV for lunar orbit insertion and escape and lunar landing and takeoff are all ISP 330 instead of 360 or higher, the payload to the Moon will suffer greatly. Methane and LOX are warm enough to not be a big boil off problem. LH2 would be great but it is much colder and does have major boil off problems.

For LEO only, like servicing the space station, especially the 6 month docked escape vehicle use, hypergolic makes perfect sense. Maybe the future versions of the vehicles intended for lunar trips could go back to the higher energy propellants.